I don't want to get the camera and not be able to use it. (Well, I guess I could use it, but I couldn't finish anything with it until it is supported by LR.)

Then do yourself a favor and add your voice to the list of people who dislike undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. The industry doesn't have to be like this if Nikon and Canon changed their behavior...a new camera that saved DNG (at least as an option) would have support from the get go. The fact that Nikon and Canon continue to force undocumented and proprietary raw file formats on the industry is why we are where we are...

After years of having heared this pile of garbage repeated over and over, I can't say I am surpised, but I can still say I am outraged.

I am outraged not only at the attitude of the camera manufacturers, who remain secretive regarding the raw data their cameras are creating and about the attitide of regarding their sucking software as the maximum their customers should be expecting.

I am equally outraged at the attitude of Adobe, whose lousy software architects (if there are any, though I don't see the result of their activities regarding raw data processing) seem to think that they are called by some suprame entity to regulate the market, while in fact they are slowing down the development.

However, all the above is nothing compared to the distasteful attempts of other suckers to make Adobe's mistakes appear as some natural limits of computing technology we should be thankful to enjoy.

Then do yourself a favor and add your voice to the list of people who dislike undocumented and proprietary raw file formats. The industry doesn't have to be like this if Nikon and Canon changed their behavior...a new camera that saved DNG (at least as an option) would have support from the get go. The fact that Nikon and Canon continue to force undocumented and proprietary raw file formats on the industry is why we are where we are...

Jeff why should Canon/Nikon provide Adobe with it's RAW details? after all they like Adobe are in business to make money, both have their own software, and their own shareholders to please. Adding support for another companies benifit isn't going to make them any money, adding DNG to their cameras is also going to cost them money, as their software already opens their RAW they don't really need to do it. One could use the same argument to suggest Adobe open up it's coding to other companies, then they could make ACR updates for the older versions of PS. Wayne

Wayne, the difference is that most of the intelligence that goes into building a camera system is the hardware and the software processing, not the file format.

Cameras that offer non-raw file formats (i.e., just about all of them) tend to use a single one: JPEG. This makes it possible for anybody who has JPEG-reading software (i.e., just about everyone) to read these camera-generated JPEGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates. For example, you don't need an updated version of Picasa, Firefox, ACDSee, Photoshop, Windows, Mac OS X, etc. to read these JPEGs.

Some cameras do write in-camera DNG raw files. So, analogous to the above, anybody who has DNG-reading software can read those camera-generated DNGs as soon as they get the camera, without needing to wait for software updates.

That isn't the case with today's non-DNG raw files, which is too bad because most use an IFD structure very similar to TIFF; it's just that everyone stores the essential data in different tags (and occasionally move them around from camera to camera ...). And in some cases,the non-DNG format is quite close to DNG (such as Canon CR2 and some other recent cameras, where the image data format is identical to DNG). Many other cameras are also use delta Huffman coding to store the raw image that is trivially different from the Lossless JPEG compression that DNG uses. So I don't buy the argument that adding DNG support to the camera is really going to cost them more money; if anything it'll save them money.

Regarding your comment "provide Adobe with it's RAW details", you are confusing the image format versus the image processing. It is the image processing abilities (demosaic, noise reduction, lens corrections, tool set etc.), not the file format, where the software should (and do) compete. In other words, ideally, photographers should choose their raw converter(s) based on things like image quality and workflow, rather than what the format of the file is.

It is entirely possible for camera makers to use a common file format without divulging their image processing recipes (i.e., secret sauces) which they could continue to incorporate in their own raw converters (and sell if they choose to, such as in the case of Nikon Capture NX). I would argue that they would actually sell MORE cameras that way, based on the data I've seen.

Gabor, you have now thrown "lousy software architects" and "nightmare of software architecture" in Adobe's direction. You have made some reasonable technical arguments in the past, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but the insulting remarks are out of line. Watch your tone, please.

When we lose our ability to control our images, we are poorer for it. Kodak never told me that I could only develop my film in D76, or just use a Bessler enlarger. Maybe I preferred Rodinol and an Omega. A proprietary raw format is a clear equivalent in that the camera maker is hobbling what I do with my images. (And if you use their software, you know that I use the word hobbling without exaggeration).

Once the image is shot the camera company's role should come to an end. Creating their files (at least optionally) in an open format that allows me to use whatever image processing tools I wish is not just a want to have, it's a must have.

There are already raw formats that have been orphaned by camera makers. How will you feel when 5, 10 or 15 years from now you go to open your prize winning (money earning) raw file and find that the manufacturer's current raw processing software no longer supports it, and that the last version that did only runs on the equivalent of a Commodore 64 and is only available on a 5 1/4" floppy?

Sorry. Once the shot is taken the image is mine, and I don't want any company to control its destiny. DNG, or some other standardized format is therefore a must.

Jeff why should Canon/Nikon provide Adobe with it's RAW details? after all they like Adobe are in business to make money, both have their own software, and their own shareholders to please.

Sure they do and they should be able to do so. But I'm not buying a 5D MII (or any of my previous Cannon's) for their software. I'm buying their hardware. They can bundle software or not, I don't care. If they cripple the camera itself, I'm not too happy. And as Michael points out, the data is mine, not theirs. This is another classic example of a group of companies that don't know if they are in the hardware or software business. Really, how many Canon or Nikon customers purchase the product based on the usually lame software they bundle with the hardware? Let em make all the profits the market will allow. They allow you to produce a JPEG no? That's not proprietary nor affecting their profits. Proprietary Raw files serve no one, certainly not the consumer.

I thought there were "maker notes" or something in DNG. So canon or nikon wouldn't have to tell everything about their RAW files. Just put the bulk of the data in a recognizable format and stuff anything required for their secret sauce into the maker notes. Everybody wins.

The point I was making (which some of you missed) was are Nikon/Canon going to make any extra money from adding DNG, the answer is not really. Judging from the waiting list for the 5d2 and the way d700 and d3's are flying off the shelves, it seem not many togs are refusing cameras because they don't have DNG.Take Nikon for example, why would they want to encourage their customers to use a rivals software? Yes it would be nice for us togs to have more choice of formats, but business is business.Adobe doesn't support it's older version because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell the new version. Nikon doesn't support Adobe DNG because it would cost them money and they wouldn't sell their software. Money talks I suppose. Wayne

The point I was making (which some of you missed) was are Nikon/Canon going to make any extra money from adding DNG, the answer is not really.

Take Nikon for example, why would they want to encourage their customers to use a rivals software?

Why should either Nikon of Canon care? They are selling hardware. A 3rd party might make their final product look better. Having DNG gives the customer more options. It shows good will towards a customer. It shows they care about providing a format that isn't proprietary. It in no way makes the final product less desirable, just the opposite.

Tell us how Nikon or Canon makes more money or offers more to the customer by NOT supporting DNG give the facts above.

I think if camera makers would stop trying to write processing software, and rather plug all these ressources into QM we all would benefit from that. Whether Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. I personally know not a single soul in my circles that uses canon, nikon, olympus etc software. Same counts for certain medium format offers, the goal is to get the DNG and after that it is Lightroom and Photoshop in my world.

The software we have at our disposal has probably plenty "man years" in development time behind it. The software that comes bundled with a camera usually would end in my bin, but I need to keep it to be able to update the cameras firmware. I just wish more cameras would write DNG to start with. I think the announced new Leica S2 will do so as well.

What Michael said is a phenomenon you can find in the audio industry already. Files became incompatible even within one single breed of sequencer software . If I am working on a composition that is saved as symphony.xyz and wait 2 years, update the software to it's latest incanation, and try to open the file.... well.... talk about a cold sausage, chances are you will not be able to swiftly have this transferred into your new application.

DNG is the best that happened to this BS since a long time IMHO. A very clever move that made me laugh in deed, while camera makers refused to standardise RAW formats and everyone cooked their own sausage, Adobe has managed to just let them be and came out with DNG which solves the problem. I am somewhat certain not everyone out there liked that!

Any attitude of camera makers that would claim the file I shoot NOT to be my property, well, I simply would not buy their camera. Just my € 0,02 which is more than $ 0,02 fwiw.

Why should either Nikon of Canon care? They are selling hardware. A 3rd party might make their final product look better. Having DNG gives the customer more options. It shows good will towards a customer. It shows they care about providing a format that isn't proprietary. It in no way makes the final product less desirable, just the opposite.

Tell us how Nikon or Canon makes more money or offers more to the customer by NOT supporting DNG give the facts above.

The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.I didn't say Canon or Nikon make MORE money from not having DNG.Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras) both Canon and Nikon would have to spend a fair amount of money making all their cameras DNG format as well as their own RAW. As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.Wayne

Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras)

And you know this how? And by supporting DNG, dismisses this so called fact how? What's the file format got to do with this? How is making the format proprietary in any way make their software better? Or, they simply fear any competition (which they have anyway)? And even if what you say is true, as the consumer, how can you allow this company to hold your data hostage?

I'd gladly pay a reasonable software premium to Canon if they'd support DNG. I'd highly consider jumping from one camera manufacturer to another if the hardware were comparable but the other guy didn't force a proprietary format on me.

As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.Wayne

Hi Wayne,

I think you are on the wrong track with that assumption. To my experience, most colleagues in my small circle, and they do use all kinds of cameras, do use DNG in deed, not to make life easier for Adobe, but for themselves.

I see your point though, but as Andrew said, the DNG converter is available, and free if I am not mistaken, and allows for continuation of "older" photoshop versions such as CS3.

Your other assumption that camera manufacturers would have to spend a fair amount of money on writing DNG files, well, I do not know how much money is involved in supporting that, but I intend to think it is not a question of possible investments, rather than being somewhat unsupportive of a common standard, may be?

Do you have a reference link regarding the reported technical problem?

I've only heard vague information from a european wholesaler. It seems to be reliable - 5D2 was expected to be available in November, now they say something about December:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5839...5D_Mark_II.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583953-REG/Canon_2764B003_EOS_5D_Mark_II.html)

I always shoot RAW + JPEG and rename the files in Bridge. When you rename the RAW files, Bridge also renames the JPEG with same name [albeit different extention]. Also if I move the RAW files the JPEGs also move too. Very handy.Now if I shoot with a camera that uses Adobe's RAW standard and rename the DNG file, the associated JPEG now does not get renamed, which makes for a whole lot of work. So by using Adobe standard RAW files, Adobe products are less usable. Nice one!

PS - I don't any dumb comments about why it's pointless to shoot JPEGs as well as RAW - thank you. I've found it can be very a useful timesaver on occasions.

And you know this how? And by supporting DNG, dismisses this so called fact how? What's the file format got to do with this? How is making the format proprietary in any way make their software better? Or, they simply fear any competition (which they have anyway)? And even if what you say is true, as the consumer, how can you allow this company to hold your data hostage?

I'd gladly pay a reasonable software premium to Canon if they'd support DNG. I'd highly consider jumping from one camera manufacturer to another if the hardware were comparable but the other guy didn't force a proprietary format on me.

I know a number of Nikon users who have bought the software, therefor nikon have made money from it. as for a company holding my data hostage DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it, every bit as much hostage to adobe as canon. (remember I can open my canon raw in both photoshop and canons software, I cant open DNG in canons software only adobes!)I am a working photographer, out of the few dozen other local togs I have asked (6 work for us) only one uses dng (only to backup his canon raw). Judging by the response of Nikon Canon (probably the 2 biggest camera companies) it's not taking the world by storm.I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use DNG, nor am I saying it would be a bad thing if all cameras used DNG as an option, what I don't want is a DNG only situation which forces me to use adobes products (at around twice the US price) I like to have the option of the makers own raw and their own software if I choose. Wayne

as for a company holding my data hostage DNG is Adobe brand of raw, how is this different and we have to use THEIR converter/software to open it, every bit as much hostage to adobe as canon.

Its an open, fully documented format, free for anyone to use (like TIFF).

Quote

(remember I can open my canon raw in both photoshop and canons software, I cant open DNG in canons software only adobes!)

Not so, there are other products like the newer version of Bibble that "open" DNG. Anyone who wants to support it can do so easily and at no cost. The fact that YOUR camera maker's software doesn't "open" a DNG is more due to their lack of adopting standards and flexibility with data formats.

Quote

I am a working photographer, out of the few dozen other local togs I have asked (6 work for us) only one uses dng (only to backup his canon raw). Judging by the response of Nikon Canon (probably the 2 biggest camera companies) it's not taking the world by storm.I'm not suggesting people shouldn't use DNG, nor am I saying it would be a bad thing if all cameras used DNG as an option, what I don't want is a DNG only situation which forces me to use adobes products (at around twice the US price) I like to have the option of the makers own raw and their own software if I choose. Wayne

There's no force from Adobe. The force is from the camera manufacturers who refuse to provide us with the options of an open format which does have advantages over the proprietary formats we have little choice to use directly. For your "tog" friends, they might actually understand the more of advantages of DNG after reading this and decide to use the format (more so if the stubborn manufacturers would listen):

What advantages? Yes the file size is slightly smaller, big deal with data storage so cheap (1 TB under a hundred quid) this makes no difference to me.I have yet to see any real tests of DNG proving it's as good as the cameras native raw. You use what you want I'll use what I'm happy with. Wayne

Actually, you're using what you have to use. A standard digital negative format could be opened in any RAW converter, so you could basically use anything.Now we're forced to buy the newest converters, (no matter if we like it or not) becouse the old ones just don't support newer RAW files, and - what's even worse - some RAW formats are not supported by some converters.

It is true that Nikon sells its own software (Capture NX). But having basic raw decoding support for NEF isn't one of CNX's advantages. Lots of programs decode NEFs already. No, the real advantages of CNX, at least in the views of some photographers, are the qualities or features that it provides that aren't offered by competing software (e.g., integrated U-Point technology, color rendering presets, etc.).

In other words, yes, CNX has competitors, but those competitors are raw conversion software products (Bibble, Camera Raw, Capture One, etc.), not file formats like DNG.

The first part could also be said about Adobe supporting earlier versions of ACR but they dont offer their goodwill towards us do they.

Different issue entirely. The issue if not making updates for software no longer shipping and supported has nothing to do with the file format except for the fact that if Nikon and Canon _DID_ offer a DNG option, then people all the way back to Photoshop CS using Camera Raw 2.4 COULD use that DNG file–which pretty much busts that argument.

Quote

Nikon makes some money from selling it's own software (as well as it's cameras) both Canon and Nikon would have to spend a fair amount of money making all their cameras DNG format as well as their own RAW. As I suspect the vast majority of photographers are not using DNG they probably dont see the point of wasting the money to make life easier for Adobe.

"Nikon" doesn't even write Capture NX, Nik Software does (with Nikon's cooperation). Nikon makes some revenue, yes but it's unclear if Nikon makes any profit. One would have to look into Nikon's books to know for sure. Canon doesn't even try to sell their software, but neither of these arguments are on topic for the issue of the usefulness of DNG. DNG is a proposed standardized, documented and open raw file format. DNG does NOT require the camera makers disclose ANYTHING because their are designed private maker notes that would allow them to maintain their "secrets". The camera makers (at least Nikon and Canon) would only need to do trivial coding to be able to use DNG and there is no cost associated with using DNG since Adobe has a liberal license that costs nothing. So, the argument that it would cost Nikon and Canon a lot of money to offer DNG is false.

The vast majority of photographers WOULD use DNG if the camera makers offered it because it's an open, documented standard, has the advantage of being able to be written to safely so metadata can be embedded into the file without a sidecar file and DNG offers optimal compression. There would be zero negative consequences to photographers should Nikon and Canon offer DNG and very little if any negative consequences to the actual camera makers. If their cameras offered DNG and their software read DNG they would actually benefit by being able to compete directly with Camera Raw & Lightroom by processing all of the camera formats that DNG supports which is over 200 raw file formats.

The unfortunate situation we're in at the moment is that many photographers are either ignorant to the downsides of the current situation regarding undocumented and proprietary raw files or simply don't car. They will care in the future if the industry fails to maintain all these proprietary raw file formats long term and that's a serious risk. Look, there is zero downside to photographers if the camera makers adopt DNG and very little downside to the camera makers themselves. Far too many photographers either don't know or don't care about the issues...but any photographer who actually thinks the current situation is good for photographers is deluded.

Different issue entirely. The issue if not making updates for software no longer shipping and supported has nothing to do with the file format except for the fact that if Nikon and Canon _DID_ offer a DNG option, then people all the way back to Photoshop CS using Camera Raw 2.4 COULD use that DNG file–which pretty much busts that argument.

"Nikon" doesn't even write Capture NX, Nik Software does (with Nikon's cooperation). Nikon makes some revenue, yes but it's unclear if Nikon makes any profit. One would have to look into Nikon's books to know for sure. Canon doesn't even try to sell their software, but neither of these arguments are on topic for the issue of the usefulness of DNG. DNG is a proposed standardized, documented and open raw file format. DNG does NOT require the camera makers disclose ANYTHING because their are designed private maker notes that would allow them to maintain their "secrets". The camera makers (at least Nikon and Canon) would only need to do trivial coding to be able to use DNG and there is no cost associated with using DNG since Adobe has a liberal license that costs nothing. So, the argument that it would cost Nikon and Canon a lot of money to offer DNG is false.

The vast majority of photographers WOULD use DNG if the camera makers offered it because it's an open, documented standard, has the advantage of being able to be written to safely so metadata can be embedded into the file without a sidecar file and DNG offers optimal compression. There would be zero negative consequences to photographers should Nikon and Canon offer DNG and very little if any negative consequences to the actual camera makers. If their cameras offered DNG and their software read DNG they would actually benefit by being able to compete directly with Camera Raw & Lightroom by processing all of the camera formats that DNG supports which is over 200 raw file formats.

The unfortunate situation we're in at the moment is that many photographers are either ignorant to the downsides of the current situation regarding undocumented and proprietary raw files or simply don't car. They will care in the future if the industry fails to maintain all these proprietary raw file formats long term and that's a serious risk. Look, there is zero downside to photographers if the camera makers adopt DNG and very little downside to the camera makers themselves. Far too many photographers either don't know or don't care about the issues...but any photographer who actually thinks the current situation is good for photographers is deluded.

Ok; I give up. After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't? Or at least a hypothesis?

Ok; I give up. After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't? Or at least a hypothesis?

Not invented here syndrome, cultural issues, stubbornness to name a few.

Ok; I give up. After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't? Or at least a hypothesis?

Ok; I give up. After reading this and other threads which make abundantly clear the many reasons why all camera manufacturers of raw-capable cameras should use a common raw format, could someone please tell me why they don't? Or at least a hypothesis?

I'm pretty sure that the real reason is that the camera companies have fallen into the trap of "oh, lookie here at what we found". None of the camera companies have any real background or experience at file formats or even image processing. The traditional role of a camera company was to provide a light tight film transport and form an image on unexposed film. Neither Nikon nor Canon have EVER been involved in image processing. The only company that does have any track record is Fuji in that they also made film and did processing. Nikon and Canon are really rookies in this field. Nikon and Canon BOTH had a tie with Kodak–Kodak DOES have a long track record of image processing and substantial background in digital processing–too bad Kodak let things slip away. Back before either Nikon nor Canon ever made a digital camera, Kodak sold digital cameras with both Nikon and Canon bodies. The early 35mm camera style digital cameras were wholesaled by Nikon and Canon to Kodak who in turn handled all the sensor work and analog to digital conversion. Neither Nikon nor Canon really liked that arrangement but Nikon broke loose from that triad first and camera out with their own digital camera first...Canon followed by a year or so.

When Nikon and Canon started making digital cameras (and Canon actually started making their own sensors) they decided that now they could control the whole image capture process including the actual file formats. Nikon actually DID already have their own digital file format, NEF (Nikon Electronic File is what I think it stands for) and made the incredibly stupid choice of also giving their raw captures the same extension. Canon started with .crw and for their first full frame (1Ds) switched to .tif (which was also incredibly stupid but followed what Kodak had started as Kodak's raws were also .tif).

From there–and we're only talking 8-9 years ago, both Nikon and Canon have heavily invested and competed with each other on the basis of the "Nikon" or the "Canon" "Look". Which is an absolute joke because neither company has any real experience in doing that. But, you have to understand the typical Japanese mindset...they play the game on the long field and are incredibly reluctant to release anything that hold in their grasp–even if what they hold, the raw file format, really has no secrets or value. Understand, the really big secret when it comes to digital processing ain't in the file format, it's what goes on in the camera where the sensor data is converted to digital data. Once it's written to media, all the secrets are pretty much over and done with. But Nikon and Canon are both very, very stubborn and so far have refused to accept hardly any raw file standards...ironically, both Nikon and Canon's own recent raw file formats have evolved and substantially improved. Why? Because of DNG. See, DNG does point out how raw file data can live with metadata in a safe and useful way. The current NEF and CR2 raw files from recent cameras are so close to being well formed DNG files that it would be trivial to take them the rest of the way to being fully formed DNG.

But, one roadblock to all of this is that the marketplace isn't really pushing Nikon nor Canon to adopt DNG. There are still photographers who think .nef and .cr2 undocumented and proprietary raw file formats are a good thing. Some photographers also seem to have a decidedly anti-Adobe vibe and continue to to think and say that DNG is a bad thing for the industry. That DNG will stifle competition (FALSE), make Nikon or Canon surrender secrets (FALSE), give Adobe ownership of raw processing (FALSE), make Adobe a lot of money (FALSE) or any of a variety of really pretty stupid reasons why DNG is not good for the industry. They are wrong–these photographers that drink the camera companies Kool-Aid, but that's the why the photo biz is...get ten photographers in a room and you end up with ten distinct opinions and the inability to act in their own best collective interest. I've been there, done that and have the tee shirts (and scare) to prove it. I'm a past national president of the Advertising Photographers of America (APA) and I've dealt with other photo organizations such as ASMP, PPA and EP and it's very, very difficult to get any sort of collective effort off the ground and accomplished.

Point of fact, if the photo organizations had any balls, this issue of undocumented and proprietary raw file formats should be an issue that ALL photographers should be able to get behind. Unfortunately, there's enough photogs out there that there is no single unified voice out there telling Nikon and Canon to fix this problem. And I'll tell you that photographers actually arguing on behalf of the camera companies purely pisses me off (which is one reason I tend to be very, uh, blunt about this issue). Personally, I'm of the opinion that any photographer that defends Nikon and Canon's approach to raw file formats is an idiot.

An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe. I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.I personally suspect it would cost more than a trivial sum for Canon/Nikon to convert their cameras and software to DNG. It certainly seems to cost Adobe too much to offer updates for older versions of it's ACR, but it's alway cheaper when it's someone else money your spending.As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW. There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens? after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past. Wayne

As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW. There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens?

Jpeg is a good example. Imagine, that every camera has it's own jpeg format... Do you need any evidence to belive, that one standard jpeg format is better than 1000 camera specific jpeg formats?

I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.

Then perhaps you all should educate yourselves...there's an upcoming event at The Institute of Physics, London, UK you may be interested in 4th International Conference on Preservation and Conservation Issue in Digital Printing and Didigtal Photography (http://www.iop.org/Conferences/Forthcoming_Institute_Conferences/PPP_2009/index.html). So at least some Brits are up on current events relating to conversation and preservation and it's a pretty big issue for the National Archives (http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/). Ask some of these people what they think about undocumented and proprietary raw file formats for digital photography and the what they think of the benefits of DNG would be.

Seriously, if you don't think this is a big problem, you've got your head in the sand...

Gabor, you have now thrown "lousy software architects" and "nightmare of software architecture" in Adobe's direction. You have made some reasonable technical arguments in the past, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but the insulting remarks are out of line. Watch your tone, please.

There are separate issues here:

1. The professional aspects, i.e. what makes the architecture inadequate; but does anyone dispute this?

2. The underlying reasons, i.e. if Adobe planned to further the sale of PS/LR by means of ACR, or the designers have not realized the negative consequences of their decisions, or the consequences were not deemed important enough. This is pure speculation for outsiders.

3. The choise of the terms describing the inadequacy; this is a subjective matter.

Anyway, my professional assessment is unchanged, and mincing the words is the last item on my list of priorities.

1. Creating the raw file in a form, which allows a generic interpretation of the data,

2. Adding information, which is useful but not essential for the interpretation of the data.

DNG accomodates both concerns. However, one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) for users sticking to the propriatory formats and to the propriatory raw processing software is, that most cameras offer features/options, which were/are not transformable in standard DNG format.

Examples:

- saturation, contrast, sharpness. These are particularly striking, for many, perhaps most users wish to preserv and automatically use these in-camera settings,

ACR (and thus the DNG converter) did not allow for custom curves, nor for color rendering options up to the DNG version 1.2, which came out in 2008-05. Saturation, contrast, sharpness are still not covered. (*)

One can't expect customers to exert pressure on the manufacturers towards adopting DNG, while important features are not accessible that way.

(*) Saturation, contrast, sharpness are covered by Exif, but not adequately.

An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe. I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.

Most people who used Internet Explorer or Safari as their browser, do so as it came with the computer and hence the great market share of these two amongst PC + Apple users respectively. Most people don't bother to use DNG as if their files aren't DNG in first place you have to make a concious decision to change your files during import.

Quote

I personally suspect it would cost more than a trivial sum for Canon/Nikon to convert their cameras and software to DNG. It certainly seems to cost Adobe too much to offer updates for older versions of it's ACR, but it's alway cheaper when it's someone else money your spending.

I'm sure it could be done in Firmware as you can hack Canon P+Ss to do RAW files that way - and that's by people who had to reverse engineer the software. Adobe only have to rewrite software as camera companies keep changing their RAW formats. But Adobe make it possible to keep working with new file formats in old software for no charge if you convert to DNG. So there is no need to waste time rewriting the old software. And Canikon can use DNG for free as well.

Quote

As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW. There have been a few other file formats launched recently jpeg xr for one, I wonder how quick Canon/Nikon will be to convert all their cameras to this, or will they wait and see what happens? after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past. Wayne

Uh RAW is RAW, so a better brand of is not a relevant term. Just like various movie/sound files are often identical bar their extension and the wrapper.

DNG accomodates both concerns. However, one of the reasons (perhaps the main reason) for users sticking to the propriatory formats and to the propriatory raw processing software is, that most cameras offer features/options, which were/are not transformable in standard DNG format.

Examples:

All of your examples are simply proprietary rendering instructions which can be (and already are) stuffed into the maker note. This is easily compatible with the DNG container, and in fact, DNGs created from the DNG Converter (or Camera Raw, or Lightroom) already contain all this data. So it would be trivial for DPP or Capture NX to extract the special data (e.g., shooting distance) from the DNG private maker note tag, just like it does today from the maker note (or private TIFF tags) of a CR2 or NEF.

An interesting and blunt reply Jeff, sadly coloured by your connections with Adobe. I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.

Maybe cause they're idiots! Show some respect to Jeff. Jeff's "coloured (AND i will spell it the correct way Jeff!!) connection to adobe" is the 'circle' that has done a whole bunch for this industry that you will only ever have wet dreams of doing mate. His abrasive approach can be unsettling, yes, i sometime wonder if he was an Aussie in a past life, but we love his direct to the point no bull. (Colour colour colour....!)

Quote from: sniper

As I said in my earlier post I am still waiting to see any real evidence DNG is better than the cameras own brand RAW.

This is not a matter of whether one is better than the other from a consumer/marketing perspective. Stop viewing this as a product release type issue, when was the last time you viewed an advertisement for DPP?. Precisely because it is the camera manufacturers own brand, is what gets in the way of my control of my intellectual property. I bought the camera, not the proprietary RAW format.

Quote from: sniper

after all other file formats have fallen by the wayside in the past.

AAhhh well, i think you need to read your own words on this one, exactly, you hit the nail on the head, spot on, could not have said it better myself, cha ching. So, then, what are you waiting for, switch to DNG and you wont have to worry about that in the long term future?

That undocmented proprietary formats are unsafe for future use is indisputable in my opinion. The impulse to develop a standard probably came from the nightmare Adobe faced by supporting xyz versions of different RAW formats in ACR.

Agreed?

Some seem to claim that Adobe's whole intention is to create a dependency/cash making maschine. While they are in the business to make money there are very good people in Adobe that have a passion for photography, otherwise we would not be were we are in terms of post processing!

Since DNG was first introduced in 2004 many have joined to support it, and besides it has evolved, but only revised twice ever since I think.

If anyone doubts that the intention is to make this a standard, of which we all would benefit at the end, you may not have noticed that Adobe, to the best of my knowlegde, is applying for DNG to become an integer part of ISO 12234-2:2001. TIFF/EP

In handing over DNG to this body there is not a doubt left of their intentions to make this a standard such as PDF already is.

While not in ISO, today, EPS postscript is quasi a defacto standard.

Version 4 ICC became ISO15076, seriously folks what's so bad about that? Think about the benefits! DNG turned into such de facto standard in the past 4 years, against the roadblocks put up by manufacturers.

The world of photography will move towards standardisation, and this is of benefit to us, the photographers/printers/publishers/artists.

While I would not call colleagues who are against DNG idiots, I would ask to think twice about the benefits of such initiative before bragging on about Adbe being a bad company in general temrs, which is BS and counterproductive.

Maybe cause they're idiots! Show some respect to Jeff. Jeff's "coloured (AND i will spell it the correct way Jeff!!) connection to adobe" is the 'circle' that has done a whole bunch for this industry that you will only ever have wet dreams of doing mate. His abrasive approach can be unsettling, yes, i sometime wonder if he was an Aussie in a past life, but we love his direct to the point no bull. (Colour colour colour....!)

This is not a matter of whether one is better than the other from a consumer/marketing perspective. Stop viewing this as a product release type issue, when was the last time you viewed an advertisement for DPP?. Precisely because it is the camera manufacturers own brand, is what gets in the way of my control of my intellectual property. I bought the camera, not the proprietary RAW format.

AAhhh well, i think you need to read your own words on this one, exactly, you hit the nail on the head, spot on, could not have said it better myself, cha ching. So, then, what are you waiting for, switch to DNG and you wont have to worry about that in the long term future?

Just because Jeff works for Adobe doesn't mean he gets any more respect than anyone else.Of course it's a matter of one better than another, many people claim Canon software gives better results with CR2 files than Adobes rendering, so no advantage for DNG there.As for the long term archival use, why change the system we have now, if Adobes DNG converter can always convert our old RAW images at a later date we can just convert them when and if Canon/Nikon go bust (unlightly) and all the other companies making raw converters stop supporting them. If the thought of working for Adobe gives you guys wet dreams you really need to get out more. Coming back to the original post Canon now offer support for the 5d2 Wayne

Just because Jeff works for Adobe doesn't mean he gets any more respect than anyone else.

It would be useful if you got your facts straight on many levels...but on this point, let me disabuse you of your incorrect notion. While it is true that I sometimes with WITH Adobe, I do not (and never have) worked FOR Adobe. There is a huge difference...the fact I don't work FOR Adobe means I'm free to maintain any opinions I please. The fact that I don't work FOR Adobe means that my opinions are NOT guided by my employment nor can Adobe use any leverage over me to make me say anything (or not say anything). So, if you discount my opinion because of my "working for Adobe", you might want to get the record correct. Otherwise, you're likely to fall in that "I" camp, ya know?

I don't know what circles you move in but here in the UK in the real world DNG is not a big issue, I would honestly say most digital photographers don't use it, certainly almost none of the "idiots" I spoke to don't.

Wayne, it's good to have someone with such knowledge on the forum. Obviously you have made a thorough survey of all pro photographers here in the UK otherwise, obviously, you wouldn't make such a claim... Perhaps I could have access to your data base so I can make some pretty authoritative statements of my own, on behalf of all UK pro photographers. Thanks in advance.

Edit: forgot to say, MOST of the pro photographers that I mix with in the UK are acutely aware of the danger of not being able to process a valuable image (and so lose income) a few years after the only raw converter that could handle it has gone from the shelves. But then maybe I don't mix with idiots. Except occasionally on forums...

Of course it's a matter of one better than another, many people claim Canon software gives better results with CR2 files than Adobes rendering, so no advantage for DNG there.

Not any more. Adobe has done a great deal to improve the ACR/LR rendering with the camera profiles that came with 2.0.

Quote from: sniper

As for the long term archival use, why change the system we have now, if Adobes DNG converter can always convert our old RAW images at a later date we can just convert them when and if Canon/Nikon go bust (unlightly) and all the other companies making raw converters stop supporting them.

Why not have everything as DNG now and not have to worry about file naming conventions and archival issues later?

Quote from: sniper

Coming back to the original post Canon now offer support for the 5d2 Wayne

Ok then, just rub it in everyone's face...., they now support it cause THEY have the propriety RAW information. SO, now when the camera is released i can't use it until adobe has time to test and profile and then release the next ACR/LR update. This is the problem.

Also, i would love to see the data on your survey research. Maybe the camera manufacturers could use this data to continue is justification to its monopoly on MY images!!

Wayne, it's good to have someone with such knowledge on the forum. Obviously you have made a thorough survey of all pro photographers here in the UK otherwise, obviously, you wouldn't make such a claim... Perhaps I could have access to your data base so I can make some pretty authoritative statements of my own, on behalf of all UK pro photographers. Thanks in advance.

Edit: forgot to say, MOST of the pro photographers that I mix with in the UK are acutely aware of the danger of not being able to process a valuable image (and so lose income) a few years after the only raw converter that could handle it has gone from the shelves. But then maybe I don't mix with idiots. Except occasionally on forums...

You used the words pro photographers, I didn't, over 65% of the images taken daily are with either moble phone or compact cameras, comon sense says they are not using DNG (as most of them don't even have raw thats impossible) out of the remaining35% (ish) a fair proportion use only jpeg, leaving only the serious guys using RAW/DNG So most are not using DNG (as I said)Jeff whether you work with or for Adobe, you still get paid by them, that means you have certain obligations to your employer (or don't you do loyalty?) That is always assuming you want to work for (or with) them again.

There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad. Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates. But I doubt photoshop going to get any cheaper as a result. If you guys are right then what I think doesn't matter, if on the other hand I'm right, and lets face it they are not beating a path to adobes door to jump on the I love DNG bandwagon then maybe DNG as an archival format is not as clever as you thought.If and when all the big Cameras companies adopt DNG I'll happily hold up my hands and surrender to your greater wisdom, but I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you. My last words on this subject. Wayne

Hi Wayne, removing competition is not the goal of DNG. As I have explained earlier, camera makers that support in-camera creation of DNG raw files can compete both on the hardware side (e.g., sensor stabilization, lower read noise, ergonomics, etc.) and on the software side (e.g., proprietary image processing algorithms, such as Canon's Dust Off, Nikon's U-Point licensed from Nik Software, ALO, D-Lighting, Picture Styles, etc.).

As an analogy, all cameras support writing JPEG files. They all look different, because each camera has different base sensor capabilities and also because each does different in-camera processing (using the camera makers' secret sauces). However, the fact that they all write a shared format (JPEG) doesn't remove the competition, does it?

Quote

Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates.

I disagree. Adobe will continue to spend resources on improving the aspects of CR (and LR) that actually matter to the craft of digital photography: image quality, tools, and workflow. In other words, instead of spending time on the task of decoding new raw formats (which makes zero contribution to the craft of photography, because it doesn't improve image quality or workflow whatsoever) developers of raw conversion software (not just the Adobe team, but also those at Phase One, Bibble Labs, etc.) could work on improvements and new features that photographers have been asking for.

Jeff whether you work with or for Adobe, you still get paid by them, that means you have certain obligations to your employer (or don't you do loyalty?) That is always assuming you want to work for (or with) them again.

That's a pretty big assumption there bud...and again, not sure if you know what the heck an "independent contractor" is...here in the US, somebody who works with a company as a consultant is considered just that, an independent contractor...now focus on the word "independent" Wayne...are you getting my drift? I'm NOT "employed" by Adobe....I'm contracted by Adobe when there's an interesting project to work with them with (such as capture sharpening in Camera Raw and output sharpening in Lightroom). As far as being concerned that my future relationship with Adobe may be altered, the ONLY thing I could possibly do that would put me in dutch with Adobe is violate my NDA (in a massive, not sorta fun way that I tend to do).

If you can't understand this relationship or more accurately, relationships with PEOPLE at Adobe (from the CEO on down and including the PMs for both Lightroom and Photoshop) and even the guy who coauthored Camera Raw and Photoshop, then let me say this...I don't have to work for a living...ok? If I never did another thing for money, it would not effect my life style, so sorry to say, I and neither motivated by money nor "employment" (as you seem to keep calling it). And no, it ain't in stocks, it's in bonds. So, unless the US Treasury goes belly up (sure looked like a possible thing a month or so again but China sure seems to like to invest in the good 'ole US of A).

It sure sounds like you are bringing your own assumptions to this table and are carrying you own baggage. So, again, get your facts and your interpretation of them corrected...

Quote

There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad. Yes it will make life easier for Adobe, they wont have to spend money on ACR updates. But I doubt photoshop going to get any cheaper as a result.

Ya see, that's where you start sounding like an "idiot"...we aren't taking Adobe is good, camera companies are bad...we are talking DNG is a documented and fully open raw file format (which is good) and NEF and CR2 are undocumented and proprietary raw file formats (which is bad). Forget about this being an "Adobe Thing" ok? In the not too distant future, it won't even be an Adobe thing if the ISO (you do know what that stands for, right?) includes it as part of the revised TIFF-EP spec. And it's not about removing competition in the switch to DNG, I guess you don't understand that DNG can contain ALL of the metadata that an NEF and CR2 can hold...there is no giving away the secrets...there is no removal of competition (unless you want to count the "competition" for which camera maker has the least friggin' useful raw file format...)

Again, any photographer who honestly thinks the current situation is "good" really needs help. Seriously...

There seems to be a very fixed idea here, ADOBE IS GOOD everything else is bad, like you guys I'm entitled to my opinion, I think removing the competiton and switching over to DNG is bad.

Of course you're entitled to your opinions, even in this case, its highly questionable why you have formed them as such. You've pretty much failed at providing any reasons why DNG is "bad" and Eric has attempted to explain to you what this open non proprietary file container does and how it in no way takes away from the camera manufacturers. Bringing up existing rendered captures from cell phone cameras is taking this way off course and doesn't at all help in your so called argument.

From a technical standpoint, you've provided nothing to explain this belief system you have about DNG. Now if this is an opinion based on some religious belief, so be it. I doubt any of us want to convince you otherwise as arguing about religion is pointless.

If you've got something concrete that suggests DNG is bad for us end users, pro or otherwise that has technical merits, I'm all ears.

From a technical standpoint, you've provided nothing to explain this belief system you have about DNG. Now if this is an opinion based on some religious belief, so be it. I doubt any of us want to convince you otherwise as arguing about religion is pointless.

That's where Andrew and I diverge...I think it's unconscionable for ANY photographer in their right mind to think that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file situation is anything but totally unacceptable long term. Anybody who does think that is either uneducated about the issues or has no interest for the well being of the photography industry. And don't confuse "religion" with technology...and that's what this boils down to, information technology and the importance of documented and open file formats. If, after all of this discussion, a photographer doesn't accept the facts as presented, then their are either under the influence of the camera makers or they are an idiot. Seriously folks, there is NOTHING GOOD about the current undocumented, proprietary raw file format problem for photographers and to reject that notion is to give aid and comfort to the enemy (the file format, not the companies).

All of your examples are simply proprietary rendering instructions which can be (and already are) stuffed into the maker note. This is easily compatible with the DNG container, and in fact, DNGs created from the DNG Converter (or Camera Raw, or Lightroom) already contain all this data. So it would be trivial for DPP or Capture NX to extract the special data (e.g., shooting distance) from the DNG private maker note tag, just like it does today from the maker note (or private TIFF tags) of a CR2 or NEF.

This is the acknowledgment, that interpreting the raw data based on DNG is inferior to that based on the native raw files. It is really not the point I intended to arrive at in the coruse of this discussion, but the fact is, that DNG is an un-coordinated effort to go in the right direction but ignoring the actual demand.

As long as the raw data processor has to go back to the native raw data for such basic information, the claim for DNG's "universality" remains unserious.

There is no reason for anyone to convert the native raw data in DNG if the accepted result can not be achieved without MakerNote.

That's where Andrew and I diverge...I think it's unconscionable for ANY photographer in their right mind to think that the current undocumented and proprietary raw file situation is anything but totally unacceptable long term. Anybody who does think that is either uneducated about the issues or has no interest for the well being of the photography industry. And don't confuse "religion" with technology...and that's what this boils down to, information technology and the importance of documented and open file formats. If, after all of this discussion, a photographer doesn't accept the facts as presented, then their are either under the influence of the camera makers or they are an idiot. Seriously folks, there is NOTHING GOOD about the current undocumented, proprietary raw file format problem for photographers and to reject that notion is to give aid and comfort to the enemy (the file format, not the companies).

ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before.

Besides, there is probably nothing good about un-documented file formats, but there is potentially something bad about having to use a standard that - as all standards - can only evolve slowly to take into account new requirements from the users (in this case the camera companies).

If the DNG spec evolution is too slow, the practical result would be proprietary extensions whose documentation will be left to camera manufacturers to do. Will they do it? Perhaps, but there will be some reluctance from them in explaining in the open what kind of data they want to store in the raw files, since it will de facto leak some information about their imaging chain and what they are trying to do to deliver value to their customers (the photographers).

Some examples?

- data about actual sensor light response as measured in factory- info from other camera sensors (accelerometers to help removing camera motion blur in post-processing,...)- sensor dust live map- ...

I am not saying that this can not be overcome, and I assume that Adobe has factored this in and proposed a convincing set of arguments to help camera manufacturers move in the right direction, but I have at last never seen any convincing argument on this point expressed by anybody Adobe related.

ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before.

Ya see, that's what the problem is...so many people seem hellbent to keep ADOBE out of the position of leading the documented raw file format effort but then also sit around and complain about STANDARDS being slow to evolve. Which was the whole reason Adobe kept onto the grassroots standard since 2004. Adobe CAN react quickly to eh development of new cameras–the proof is that Thomas and team have been doing 3-4+ updates of Camera Raw since it was started–which is a pretty darn good track record. And, as needed, they've updated the specs recently to include DNG Profiles. Naw, the claim that you'll wait till the ISO has control over the standard is more of the same...feet dragging (just like some of the camera makers are doing).

Again there is NOTHING about the current situation that is the LEAST bit good for photographers and the photographic industry, and any side issue like not wanting Adobe to be in charge of the standard is crap...Adobe owns TIFF and it's never been a problem (except for when some sloppy developers break the spec) and even the ISO needed TIFF-6 for their TIFF-EP spec. But if you look at the ISO timetable for updates, it's enough to make you want to cry...you seriously don't want a standard's body to be in charge of updating quick moving standards, dooode!

ISO is a must, discussions will start the day DNG is an ISO standard, not the day before

Well, this is a dire outlook. Would not one expect a dicussion before a standard is declared?

One of the basic problem is, that Adobe declared a "standard" on their own.

There are two sides to that issue.

1. Some other parties were not prepared to move. This problem can not be stressed enough.

2. Adobe's "expertise" is everything but expertise, when the issue is to declare an intenational standard. In fact, it would be a sad day for digital photography, if Adobe found enough suckers to support the present DNG to be accepted as a standard.

One of the basic problem is, that Adobe declared a "standard" on their own.

No...that's not at all uncommon, it's called a "grassroots standard" and it happens all the time in a variety of industries...it happens where one participant has needs, creates a reasonable standard and then touts that standard...it's slightly unusual that the standard creator just gives it away as Adobe is/will be doing...

Quote

2. Adobe's "expertise" is everything but expertise, when the issue is to declare an intenational standard.

That's your opinion but it's not backed up by facts. Adobe has a long track record at creating standards...PDFTIFF (they didn't actually start it, Aldus did but Adobe has kept it alive)XMPDNGAnd a host of recent open source (mainly for the web which I don't care about)

So, you better back up the statement that Adobe doesn't have the expertise if you're gonna go flapping your gums bud...their "expertise" is backed by Adobe's track record, your opinion is based on what, exactly?

The current DNG 1.2 specification is sufficiently rich to represent (and allow decoding of) raw data for the vast majority of the cameras that shoot raw. (The exception is Foveon.) The specification does contain a chapter presenting a baseline scene-referred processing model, i.e., how to get from camera-native coordinates to RIMM.

However, as I've indicated earlier in the thread, and elsewhere, DNG is not intended to universalize or standardize output-referred rendering (whether display-referred or print-referred, the two most common options). There is little point in standardizing scene-to-output rendering controls commonly found in raw conversion software and given common labels such as contrast, saturation, presence, clarity, boost, etc. Just like there is little point in standardizing the print-referred perceptual tables that go into ICC printer profiles; it is up to each profile-creation software (e.g., ProfileMaker, MonacoPROFILER, Argyll, etc.) to make its own decisions/tradeoffs about the rendering, but ultimately they stuff the secret sauce into a common container, i.e., the BtoA0 tag in an ICC profile.

That said, the DNG specification does allow camera makers to include a desired default "appearance" or "style" if they wish to (I have demonstrated this with the Camera Matching beta profiles, and Casio will demonstrate it with the EX-FH20, which has full support for DNG 1.2 extended color profile format, and two other unnamed camera makers will follow suit in 2009 and 2010.)

I should also mention that many photographers are under the (mistaken) impression that Adobe just cranks away on DNG on its own without consulting the camera makers, then simply expects the camera makers to "catch up" and "get on board" whenever Adobe releases an updated DNG spec. If that were true, then I could sympathize with the perception that Adobe is being arrogant with respect to "dictating" the format for the industry. However, that is not the case. We consult with most of the camera makers regarding future plans/updates for DNG, and some of the changes & additions made to the previous 2 DNG spec updates (1.1 and 1.2) were the direct result of constructive feedback from these camera makers. There are some encouraging signs that this collaboration will expand in 2009.

Since we're on the subject, how many of you convert your RAW files to DNG when importing from your memory cards?

Depends on the number of cards to be downloaded. I archive the original RAW as well as the DNG after edtiing.If I have to DL one card, I let Downloader Pro call the DNG converter as a plug-in, if there are more cards it is easier to let DL pro do only the downloading and let the DNG converter run on all files in one go